Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct vs GPT-5.4 Nano

Model Markets Rankings

Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency

All rankings →
RankingLlama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-InstructGPT-5.4 Nano
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v1.2UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort#22 of 2214.7 score
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimateUnrankedNot in the 36-model eligible cohort#13 of 36$0.058 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.0UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort#21 of 2235.3 score

Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.

Benchmark Performance

Available Benchmarks

BenchmarkLlama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-InstructGPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,287.1394% of row best · rating · llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct; 95% CI [1282.87677682, 1291.39199009]; votes 39349; rank 2431,372.87100% of row best · rating · gpt-5.4-nano-high; 95% CI [1369.01004978, 1376.72255426]; votes 58562; rank 163
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-08-27-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,141.4795% of row best · rating · llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct; 95% CI [1132.42029588, 1150.51619722]; votes 6936; rank 1021,197.82100% of row best · rating · gpt-5.4-nano-high; 95% CI [1191.24291416, 1204.39749063]; votes 23952; rank 76
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark wins2 benchmark winsOverall lead

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

FieldAt a Glance
Meta · activeLlama 4 Maverick 17B 128E InstructVerified Aug 28, 2026
OpenAI · activeGPT-5.4 NanoVerified Sep 3, 2026

Technical Differences

Side-by-Side Facts

Indexable
FieldLlama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-InstructGPT-5.4 Nano
DeveloperMetaOpenAI
FamilyLlama 4 Maverick 17b 128e InstructGpt 5 4
ModelLlama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-InstructGPT-5.4 Nano
VersionLlama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-InstructGPT-5.4 Nano
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2025-04-052026-03-17
Knowledge cutoffUnknown2025-08-31
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K400K
Total parameters401.6BUnknown
Active parameters17BUnknown
LicenseotherUnknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesNo
Provider accessOpenrouter (Standard)Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, toolschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools

14 comparable fields · 10 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct Capabilities

chatgenerationtools
Input price$0.20
Output price$0.696
Serving providers1
Canonical IDmeta-llama/Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct

GPT-5.4 Nano Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Input price$0.20
Output price$1.25
Serving providers2
Canonical IDopenai/gpt-5.4-nano

Internal Comparison Graph

Related Comparisons

All image comparisons →
APairBContext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct vs GPT-5.4 Nano FAQs

Is Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or GPT-5.4 Nano better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct and GPT-5.4 Nano, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or GPT-5.4 Nano?+

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.20 and GPT-5.4 Nano is $0.20 per million tokens, so they are tied on this metric. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.696 and GPT-5.4 Nano is $1.25 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or GPT-5.4 Nano?+

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct supports 1,000K and GPT-5.4 Nano supports 400K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or GPT-5.4 Nano?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or GPT-5.4 Nano be self-hosted?+

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is open weight; GPT-5.4 Nano is not marked open weight.

Can Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct and GPT-5.4 Nano understand images?+

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is documented with image input; GPT-5.4 Nano is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or GPT-5.4 Nano?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is — and GPT-5.4 Nano is 128K.

Do Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct and GPT-5.4 Nano support reasoning and tool use?+

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct: tool calling and image input. GPT-5.4 Nano: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or GPT-5.4 Nano?+

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has 1 sourced provider route; GPT-5.4 Nano has 2, so GPT-5.4 Nano has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct or GPT-5.4 Nano?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback